Would I like to see a plan that deals with Iran in a non-violent way that will cause a stable agreement that we can live with for many years? Of course.
If the US Military has those things in their arsenal then of they should be on the table, the merits should be considered, and people should make choices as to what action to take, and pro and cons of those actions. Including the ethical dilemmas involved. Should a military attack be needed, then shouldn't all of the options been considered, and the best one picked. Is it fair to say that we won't consider an option at all? If American lives are at stake then I want a nuclear first strike option considered very carefully in almost every situation. Could we save American lives by nuking Tehran? I want that question asked. If the answer is no, then I'm ok with that. But I want the question asked. I'm not saying we should nuke them. I am saying that I want them to think we might. Have we let it happen, yes, should we have let it happen? No. My stance on this has been stated before. If there is a way we can save lives and make things better in the world we should do it. I don't limit my stance to just Israel, I feel that people in general ought not be threatened by evil, and I believe that America is not evil. And I believe that the when they are able, free countries ought to do what they can to ensure the freedom of all people on this world. And if that means killing people, then it means killing people. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:24 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bush reconfirms nuking Iran, sorry :) > > Since when has that been a rule? We've let it happen before, and will > probably let it happen again. > > Don't you really mean - We won't allow it to happen to Isreal? > > There is a difference between not taking it off the table (I agree, > the less said the better), and stating that it is expicitely ON the > table. > > Do you think this should be a policy? That we should use a nuclear > weapon against Iran to prevent them further down the nuclear path? Not > a refusal to take it off the table, but an acual, honest to god plan > for dealing with Iran? > > And if you are not willing to take any options off the table, how > about poisoning all milk products? Unleashing a bioweapon that makes > all women infertal? Killing all women and children as a preventive > measure? > > You obviously think all of these options are valid, and should be left > on the table as a preemptive measure. > > Fortunately, most Americans, and in the vast majority of people on > earth disagree with you. > > My only hope is that those in power at the moment in Washington also > disagree with you. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204647 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
